Lead Opinion
Conviction in District Court of Stonewall County of burglary, punishment fixed at eight years in the penitentiary.
The home of Farrow was burglarized and a quantity оf personal property taken. Shortly thereafter the prоperty was found in a house occupied by appellant, аnother man and a woman. Said parties were present when thе property was located but seem to have made no stаtement, though a movement of appellant toward the bed where a pistol was found, is in evidence. The house so occuрied consisted of three rooms, two below and one above. Most of the stolen property was found in the downstairs bed room. Viоla King, the woman who was in company with appellant, was used as a witness by the State and testified to the fact of the burglary. She said thаt she and the two men went to the burglarized house in a car together; that she and appellant sat in the car just across the roаd while their companion entered the house and made two triрs bringing to the car the loot. That together they carried the articles taken from said house to the place they occuрied, and that they were using it up to the time the officers came. That she and appellant occupied the downstairs bedroom.
There are two bills of exception in the record, one сomplaining of the action of the court in permitting Viola King to testify *60 that appellant slept on a mattress taken from the burglarizеd house; the other of which appears to be multifarious, presenting appellant’s complaint to three separatе matters, each of which, however, we conceive to present no error even if the bill could be considered. We are not in accord with the contention in bill No. 1.
Appellant, Skirlock аnd Viola King being found in possession. of the alleged stolen property recently after same was taken, we think, presents sufficient сorroboration of the testimony of the accomplice King and justified the jury in their verdict of guilty.
Finding ho error in the record, the judgment will be аffirmed.
Affirmed.
Addendum
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
n view of appellant’s insistence we have again reviewed the facts for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the corroboration of the accomplice. The tеstimony of said accomplice made out the State’s case completely and practically showed a consрiracy between herself, appellant and another, the fulfillmеnt of which seemed to include thefts and burglaries. She testified that the property acquired by herself and the other two as the result of theft was being used by herself and appellant at the time of their arrеst. There was no question but that this witness was amply corroborated, and the presence of a large quantity of stolen property in the three-room house occupied by herself and her companions was shown without dispute. We have reviewed the Russell case,
Believing the case was properly decided on original presentation, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.
Overruled.